So we should mirror Germany's Network Enforcement Act and be good little sheeple? Your government passes laws that violate its own constitution and make free speech illegal. Pathetic!
So we should mirror Germany's Network Enforcement Act and be good little sheeple? Your government passes laws that violate its own constitution and make free speech illegal. Pathetic!
foo wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
The cheap shots are just too easy, so I'll avoid those.
Let's see how well your socialist welfare state works with all those wonderful immigrants you've been letting pour into Germany. To 98% of Americans it seems like you're committing cultural and economic suicide and I'm willing to bet that way more than half of us got that right.
Oh, and on German national health care, I saw a documentary a couple years back where German medical companies admitted that almost all their profits come from the US market because socialist countries squeeze the profit out of health care. Do you know what that means? It means that if the US goes full socialism, then the profits drop out of health care development and all you countries who depend on us will suffer way more than we will because your health care will no longer be subsidized by us.
... and I'll be right here explaining what happened to you, but you won't understand it because you think trickle down is a joke. You don't understand basic economics because you've been insulated from the consequences of your disastrous policies. Germans, amazingly talented and productive people but the source of ALL the worst ideas in the world.
What's an "opportunity set"? Maybe the German/English translator messed up.
DiscoGary, please don't suggest that you represent a majority of Americans. You speak for maybe 20 to 25% of us at most, not 98%.
Actually, he speaks for 0.0000003% (1/326,000,000)
Disco Danny wrote:
So we should mirror Germany's Network Enforcement Act and be good little sheeple? Your government passes laws that violate its own constitution and make free speech illegal. Pathetic!
Oh look! You used 'sheeple'!
And it gets better. You ended with 'Pathetic!'
The so-called POTUS would be so proud!
PIO! wrote:
foo wrote:
DiscoGary, please don't suggest that you represent a majority of Americans. You speak for maybe 20 to 25% of us at most, not 98%.
Actually, he speaks for 0.0000003% (1/326,000,000)
But DiscoGary thinks that Republican gerrymandering give his vote special super powers. His vote alone is > than the voting value of 260,000,000 democrats and independents.
You're and Nancy's covfefe are showing. How exactly did her and her husband land that sweetheart land deal when a bridge just happened to land on his real estate? I'd love to have that type of access.
More winning for republican gun nuts. Now what? Will they continue supporting the Coffee Cheeto? Or will they surround the White House with their bump stock guns, blast away, and take Trump down? Second Amendment >>>>> Trump!
You pea brain wrote:
L L wrote:
So you are that giving money to people is popular.
Then why not give everyone fully paid for health coverage?
See, this is where liberals have lots of trouble. They think that lower tax rates mean that the government is ‘giving’ money to people. No, numbnuts, people are keeping more of the money they earned[\b]. It’s their money.
No one has earned health coverage.
The liberal mind at work is a strange (and dangerous) thing.
Actually, the tax bill is giving money to people. It's giving money to all current tax payers at the expense of future tax payers. Even more so, it's giving tons of money to people, such as myself, who are deeply invested in stocks. This, too, is at the expense of future tax payers.
This isn't a conservative/liberal thing as both parties have shown themselves to be fiscally irresponsible.
You pea brain wrote:
L L wrote:
So you are that giving money to people is popular.
Then why not give everyone fully paid for health coverage?
See, this is where liberals have lots of trouble. They think that lower tax rates mean that the government is ‘giving’ money to people. No, numbnuts, people are keeping more of the money they earned[\b]. It’s their money.
No one has earned health coverage.
The liberal mind at work is a strange (and dangerous) thing.
Earn health coverage?
We would pay for it through taxes.
Like our military.
Do Americans earn military protection or pay for it through taxes?
Do we earn public school for everyone or do we pay for it through taxes?
Even those with no income get military protection and public school.
Now if we cut a half a trillion dollars from the military would the average American even feel that? Not really.
But put that money into reducing taxes or paying people's healthcare premiums and people would feel that.
I'm saying dollar for dollar, helping with healthcare would be as popular as tax cuts.
I mean, many people are using their tax cuts to help offset their healthcare premiums and costs.
Can't Stump the Trump wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
The China thing was a bit hyperbolic. But if the tax cuts pay for themselves with growth I'll gladly proclaim that you are right and I'll even praise the godless Trump for it.
I'm not worried.
It's not just the tax cuts, it's the war on the regulatory machine and revival of economic optimism that will drive growth. M.A.G.A.
OK, I'll give you the whole Trumpian package. If the godless Trump brings the deficit lower than it was before the tax cuts I'll gladly declare you right and I'll praise the godless Trump.
Still not a bit worried.
foo wrote:
You pea brain wrote:
See, this is where liberals have lots of trouble. They think that lower tax rates mean that the government is ‘giving’ money to people. No, numbnuts, people are keeping more of the money they earned[\b]. It’s their money.
No one has earned health coverage.
The liberal mind at work is a strange (and dangerous) thing.
Actually, the tax bill is giving money to people. It's giving money to all current tax payers at the expense of future tax payers. Even more so, it's giving tons of money to people, such as myself, who are deeply invested in stocks. This, too, is at the expense of future tax payers.
This isn't a conservative/liberal thing as both parties have shown themselves to be fiscally irresponsible.
I assume that since you think it is wrong, you will be writing the government a check so that you pay the prior tax rate (or maybe even a little more)?
You wouldn't want to pass the debt on to future tax payers.
the right thing to do wrote:
You wouldn't want to pass the debt on to future tax payers.
Then you would 100% okay with reducing your pay rate so that your check size remains the same, and your tax rate drops to zero. Meanwhile, companies simply pays what used to be taxes directly to the government--the cost of doing business, and all that. In the end, you end up with same amount of money--now "tax-free"--and your company ends up sending the government the same amount as before--just not credited to you.
L L wrote:
You pea brain wrote:
See, this is where liberals have lots of trouble. They think that lower tax rates mean that the government is ‘giving’ money to people. No, numbnuts, people are keeping more of the money they earned[\b]. It’s their money.
No one has earned health coverage.
The liberal mind at work is a strange (and dangerous) thing.
Earn health coverage?
We would pay for it through taxes.
Like our military.
Do Americans earn military protection or pay for it through taxes?
Do we earn public school for everyone or do we pay for it through taxes?
Even those with no income get military protection and public school.
Now if we cut a half a trillion dollars from the military would the average American even feel that? Not really.
But put that money into reducing taxes or paying people's healthcare premiums and people would feel that.
I'm saying dollar for dollar, helping with healthcare would be as popular as tax cuts.
I mean, many people are using their tax cuts to help offset their healthcare premiums and costs.
Good gawd have you drank the Kool-aid.
You can't be for real.
3/10 (just because there probably some people out there that DO think like that)
Kool Aid Kid [aka Russian Troll Farm Bot Boy] wrote:
Republicans managed to lose a Red Kentucky house seat. Trump "won" that district 72% to 23% over Clinton--Thank You Putin. A democrat flipped that district 68% to 32% over a republican. That is a 40-point negative swing for a Trump-style "win".
the right thing to do wrote:
foo wrote:
Actually, the tax bill is giving money to people. It's giving money to all current tax payers at the expense of future tax payers. Even more so, it's giving tons of money to people, such as myself, who are deeply invested in stocks. This, too, is at the expense of future tax payers.
This isn't a conservative/liberal thing as both parties have shown themselves to be fiscally irresponsible.
I assume that since you think it is wrong, you will be writing the government a check so that you pay the prior tax rate (or maybe even a little more)?
You wouldn't want to pass the debt on to future tax payers.
I’m going to do that (as soon as my tax attorney approves it...)
This latest indictment against the son in law of a Russian oligarch is just another step toward Trump. The idea of course is to get him to give even more information on Gates and Manafort to eventually get Manafort to flip. It is clear the big get is Trump, and Mueller is going to get him.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Good evening! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine PM?
Trump is set to ban gun stalks. How do his supporters feel about that? The NRA seems ready to go to battle against Trump.
2nd amendment wrote:
Trump is set to ban gun stalks. How do his supporters feel about that? The NRA seems ready to go to battle against Trump.
This is not surprising. I warned Trump supporters when he was a candidate that he would be more of a danger to the NRA than any Democrat (this has perhaps changed now with this latest school shooting that I believe will make changes driven by Democrats).
The reason Trump is bad news for the NRA is two-fold. 1) He is not a idealist, so he can easily (and has) change positions, and 2) He is a despot wannabe, and they don't allow the public to have guns...not really enough time for that to happen, but that is in his dark heart.